Unemployment benefits definitely have their place. They help those who can't find a job and/or have recently been laid off. These institutions are necessary for times of economic slack, recession, or even just general sluggish growth. However, when these unemployment benefits are progressively extended, it's easy to find how their effects, instead of being a supportive asset to society, become adverse to both the economic environment and society as a whole.

Extending unemployment benefits is not the option we should pursue to reform welfare and stimulate economic growth. In fact, extending unemployment benefits such as the EUC (a primary unemployment benefit program) have demonstrated a slack in reemployment. [https://research.stlouisfed.org...] It's only logical that would be the case, though. You can't expect a policy that allows no work to incentivize citizens to re-enter the workforce, especially when it's effects and "assistance" become even more prevalent and available. The 9-14 weeks (depending upon "tier" environment) the EUC provides is ample time for the unemployed to at least locate another potential job.

While the income security is necessary for a time, there reaches a point at which unemployment benefits become cyclical; they stymie the job search by easing the necessity of finding a job. Before welfare systems, if you had no job, you had no food. While this, too, is problematic, we have to make sure we don't swing too far in the opposite direction. It's not just the policy in itself that affirms negative impacts of extending unemployment benefit programs, it's the dependency it facilitates. Because of how dependent families are on these programs, the Congressional Budget Office found that it can even lower the IQs of younger children. [http://www.heritage.org...]

In short, there's a lot of reasons why I believe we shouldn't extend unemployment benefits: 1) it complicates the re-employment process, 2) it creates a vicious cycle of dependency, and 3) it can have extended affects to the children associated. Moreover, it's unprecedented what a big extension could do. It's simply not, from my view, an economically feasible option.

What are your thoughts?

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

I agree with what you're saying. Hand-outs aren't a good long-term solution. I think that after 6 months, unemployment benefits should be made contingent on community service. Or enrollment in some sort of government-subsidized vocational training program.

People overthink this too much. It's pretty simple. If you're not hungry for success, you'll definitely want to hang onto your benefits as long as possible. Hell, it's a great break from real life. You can drink and smoke pot all day long and not worry about a thing.I was a victim of my own laziness when I was 20 and unemployed. I could have gotten a job easily, but what would be the point? For a whole year I lived on free money, until the very last check came. I didn't look for a job until I was forced to. Had they extended my benefits for another year I would have sat on my lazy behind for another year.Those who think people don't milk the system are imagining things and hearing politically correct voices. You should go see a good psychologist.

I would... but I wouldn't want people to get upset about posting it in the "wrong" forum. Maybe I'll try it.

I agree with what you're saying. Hand-outs aren't a good long-term solution.

Agreed.

I think that after 6 months, unemployment benefits should be made contingent on community service.

I think that's a good idea.

Or enrollment in some sort of government-subsidized vocational training program.

The only qualm (if you could even call it that) I have with this is that the idea of cutting welfare is to a) reduce costs, and b) reduce government influence. Wouldn't this require both cost and government influence?

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

I agree with what you're saying. Hand-outs aren't a good long-term solution.I think that after 6 months, unemployment benefits should be made contingent on community service.Or enrollment in some sort of government-subsidized vocational training program.

The only qualm (if you could even call it that) I have with this is that the idea of cutting welfare is to a) reduce costs, and b) reduce government influence. Wouldn't this require both cost and government influence?

Not if you factor in the cost savings from reduced welfare dependency. People tend to get off welfare much more quickly when they have to work for it (i.e. when it's not just a "hand-out" anymore). There are tons of studies showing massive decreases in welfare caseloads after work requirements were implemented in 1996. Check out my GMI debate with Thett3 for a few examples.

I agree with what you're saying. Hand-outs aren't a good long-term solution.I think that after 6 months, unemployment benefits should be made contingent on community service.Or enrollment in some sort of government-subsidized vocational training program.

The only qualm (if you could even call it that) I have with this is that the idea of cutting welfare is to a) reduce costs, and b) reduce government influence. Wouldn't this require both cost and government influence?

Not if you factor in the cost savings from reduced welfare dependency.

That's true.

People tend to get off welfare much more quickly when they have to work for it (i.e. when it's not just a "hand-out" anymore).

The EITC? :P That's the type of welfare I would support. I actually made a thread about it once, maybe you've seen it. It's probably a few pages back on the economics forum if you're interested.

There are tons of studies showing massive decreases in welfare caseloads after work requirements were implemented in 1996. Check out my GMI debate with Thett3 for a few examples.

Aight.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 3/2/2016 11:50:11 PM, ColeTrain wrote:Unemployment benefits definitely have their place. They help those who can't find a job and/or have recently been laid off. These institutions are necessary for times of economic slack, recession, or even just general sluggish growth. However, when these unemployment benefits are progressively extended, it's easy to find how their effects, instead of being a supportive asset to society, become adverse to both the economic environment and society as a whole.

Extending unemployment benefits is not the option we should pursue to reform welfare and stimulate economic growth. In fact, extending unemployment benefits such as the EUC (a primary unemployment benefit program) have demonstrated a slack in reemployment. [https://research.stlouisfed.org...] It's only logical that would be the case, though. You can't expect a policy that allows no work to incentivize citizens to re-enter the workforce, especially when it's effects and "assistance" become even more prevalent and available. The 9-14 weeks (depending upon "tier" environment) the EUC provides is ample time for the unemployed to at least locate another potential job.

While the income security is necessary for a time, there reaches a point at which unemployment benefits become cyclical; they stymie the job search by easing the necessity of finding a job. Before welfare systems, if you had no job, you had no food. While this, too, is problematic, we have to make sure we don't swing too far in the opposite direction. It's not just the policy in itself that affirms negative impacts of extending unemployment benefit programs, it's the dependency it facilitates. Because of how dependent families are on these programs, the Congressional Budget Office found that it can even lower the IQs of younger children. [http://www.heritage.org...]

In short, there's a lot of reasons why I believe we shouldn't extend unemployment benefits: 1) it complicates the re-employment process, 2) it creates a vicious cycle of dependency, and 3) it can have extended affects to the children associated. Moreover, it's unprecedented what a big extension could do. It's simply not, from my view, an economically feasible option.

What are your thoughts?

What would you suggest be done then? I personally believe that unemployment benefits do not go far enough, but if what you are suggesting is counter productive, what alternatives are to be presented.

What would you suggest be done then? I personally believe that unemployment benefits do not go far enough, but if what you are suggesting is counter productive, what alternatives are to be presented.

There are a number of options. We could implement the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) which would be ideal. If you haven't seen my thread on that, you should check it out.

Obviously, this acts under the pretense that employment benefits go too far. I've outlined my reasoning above, but I'll crystallize. The biggest reason is, simply put, that employment benefits stimulate laziness. When you don't *have* to work, you won't look for a job. This is particularly true for low-income workers who wouldn't find a high-paying job anyways. A lot of people that end up on employment benefits are low-skilled. When they can make almost as much (or more) by not working, then they'll depend on it. We know there's a problem when people live off of the government without even attempting to be employed.

The EITC provides for those in need and incentivizes work. It would be the optimal solution.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

*Censored*, it's a great break from real life. You can drink and smoke pot all day long and not worry about a thing.

I wouldn't recommend.

I was a victim of my own laziness when I was 20 and unemployed. I could have gotten a job easily, but what would be the point? For a whole year I lived on free money, until the very last check came. I didn't look for a job until I was forced to. Had they extended my benefits for another year I would have sat on my lazy behind for another year.

Exactly. *Most* people don't have an inherent desire to work all the time.

Those who think people don't milk the system are imagining things and hearing politically correct voices. You should go see a good psychologist.

I do think people take advantage of the system...

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

As someone who is very passionate about abolishing welfare, I completely agree with this, and your points. You hit the nail right on the head.

Unemployment protection was intended for fleeting occupation misfortune that was no deficiency of the worker, for example, lay-off. It is paid for by bosses. When we let somebody go, it can be for a cause, or not for a cause, unemployment starts to pay out. In the event that the individual was let go for, say, defiance, unemployment protection was initially intended to pay less or nothing, as the occupation misfortune was seen as the representative's shortcoming. In the event that I let somebody abandon cause, the rate of my "protection premium" (duty) can go up, particularly in the event that I let a few individuals go.

By amplifying unemployment advantages, we are keeping the unemployed from finding different approaches to gain a pay. A few, even numerous, of these ways would pay more than unemployment advantages. A considerable lot of us do this consistently.

Developing unemployment advantages essentially makes a class of individuals who are purchasing the base, further disabling the economy. Those on unemployment don't more often than not purchase autos, microwaves, TV sets or PCs. In any case, the individuals who have figured out how to profit for themselves frequently do. The whole system gets taken advantage of, and it hurts us, who actually work and make an effort.

At 3/9/2016 9:20:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:As someone who is very passionate about abolishing welfare, I completely agree with this, and your points. You hit the nail right on the head.

Perfect. :)

Unemployment protection was intended for fleeting occupation misfortune that was no deficiency of the worker, for example, lay-off.

Sure. But it's origins come from a time in which it was necessary. The Great Depression literally left people employed or starving. Government intervention in this manner can be beneficial, but only when it's needed as a crutch for society. Otherwise, the aforementioned concerns are absolutely relevant.

It is paid for by bosses. When we let somebody go, it can be for a cause, or not for a cause, unemployment starts to pay out.

Paid for by bosses? I don't think I'm catching your drift. People get let go for a variety of reasons, so that can't be the cause.

In the event that the individual was let go for, say, defiance, unemployment protection was initially intended to pay less or nothing, as the occupation misfortune was seen as the representative's shortcoming.

In a scenario like this, you can't provide classic unemployment benefits. That won't teach a lesson. Again, this is where the EITC would be ideal. It would give them temporary assistance, which is necessary for the society in which we live today, but also incentivize work. Speaking of the EITC... [http://www.debate.org...]

In the event that I let somebody abandon cause, the rate of my "protection premium" (duty) can go up, particularly in the event that I let a few individuals go.

By amplifying unemployment advantages, we are keeping the unemployed from finding different approaches to gain a pay. A few, even numerous, of these ways would pay more than unemployment advantages. A considerable lot of us do this consistently.

The problem is, if the unemployment benefits are enough, they see no marginal difference. If they can live a socially acceptable life (and normatively, these people are accustomed to lower standards of living already), then they'll see no reason seek actual employment. The difference in pay -- from benefits or otherwise -- doesn't have much appeal if the benefits are *enough.*

Developing unemployment advantages essentially makes a class of individuals who are purchasing the base, further disabling the economy. Those on unemployment don't more often than not purchase autos, microwaves, TV sets or PCs.

You're right here. When they have a) no money for more than the basics, and b) don't have to work, there's really not much incentive to buy into the economy and spend. They don't have the excess (if you could call it that) in the first place, they won't be inclined to get it later.

In any case, the individuals who have figured out how to profit for themselves frequently do. The whole system gets taken advantage of, and it hurts us, who actually work and make an effort.

I think the concerns often get undermined in the face of high unemployment because people pull on the heartstrings, and resort to pathos for persuasion. I have a couple of qualms with this, the first of which being this doesn't respond to the concerns. Sure, there are people in need, and they need help. But high unemployment or low unemployment don't change the fact that extended benefits facilitate, and even support, laziness. The labor market doesn't matter nearly as much as people would like you to believe in regards to unemployment benefits. The system is broke with fluidity and without, plenty of jobs and not enough.

Secondly, *why* is unemployment so high in the first place? People lose their jobs, and immediately seek unemployment benefits before searching for a job. A lot of times, they become dependent. My question is, though, how do illegal immigrants find jobs in construction, lawn care, and other rudimentary fields? If there are "no jobs" like they claim, that doesn't account for the ability of immigrants from finding work. Rather, I think the issue is that natives believe those jobs are below them. Instead of seeking employment even for lower wages, they're trying to find an easy job with hefty pay. Really, this only supports inherent laziness, which is what undermines our system to begin with.

Both of these things make me irritated with the labor market scheme itself, the perception thereof, and those who fundamentally understand how things like this work. They opine about how bad unemployment is, how we need to help those who are affected, how disadvantaged minority groups are, and how we need to pursue egalitarianism in the workplace; and in so doing, they neglect to address the substance of the issue.

Sorry, kinda on a soapbox.../rant

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW